Talk:Louder Now/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 23:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Is this in British or American English? If in British English, the comma and period by the quotations marks thing is fine. If American English, you should fix those. From: Taking Back Sunday rented a room in Manhattan,[9] sharing it with the Sleeping[10] and writing songs with laptops and guitars. To: Taking Back Sunday rented a room in Manhattan,[9] sharing it with The Sleeping[10] and writing songs with laptops and guitars. From: Most of his guitar tracks were recorded with a Epiphone Casino guitar, and he also used a Epiphone Crestwood guitar. To: Most of his guitar tracks were recorded with an Epiphone Casino guitar, and he also used an Epiphone Crestwood guitar. Typo in: Gigwise contributor Lee Glynn wrote that the album had "no standout tracks" other than "MakeDanmSure." From: According to Davies, Taking Back Sunday write two kinds of songs: To: According to Davies, Taking Back Sunday writes two kinds of songs: Note: MakeDamnSure is wikilinked several times. Just need one in the intro, one in the infobox, and one in the article. Make sure nothing else is repetitive like that is.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	*"The album has sold 674,000 copies in the U.S." - add when this is from, if it is from closer to 2008 the number could be pretty different, for example. I can't find the 2/5 rating that's supposed to be in this source: http://web.archive.org/web/20060716045430/http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-03-23/music_discs5.php (I feel dumb now, but I suppose that is more clear.)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Any lengths for the DVD sections? Or is it just one continuous shot?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Can you check on the copyright status of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Valentine.png Seems a little weird to me. (based on convo below, please remove the image above) Same with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tbsatmarysville.jpg
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

User:Secondadam, the person that uploaded File:Eric_Valentine.png, was asked on his talk page about the photo a while back, but he hasn't replied. Should I remove it? With the Tbsatmarysville picture, from what I can tell it was originally uploaded on WP (by the author) before being moved to Commons (by another user). Yeepsi (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on what went down in the talk page, I am going to guess that it is not copyrighted correctly. I would like it if you removed it from the article. The Tbsatmarysville photo should be fine. Kees08 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:THEMUSIC: "the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose." "....sharing it with the Sleeping[10]..." is correct. Yeepsi (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed the DVD track listing. Yeepsi (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

The IGN review should be even closer paraphrased, comes up with a 40% copyvio rating. I was told with The Open Door that it had to be below 30% but really this one is so high because you repeat the name of a long-titled song so many times. Simply "[...] tracks like 'My Blue Heaven', 'Spin', 'Divine Intervention' and 'I'll Let You Live' promise even greater things to come from this band, who are only now hinting at their growing sonic maturity." is good enough. Again, I'm sure the only reason the others go above 30 is because of the song title repeats in the article, but the IGN one would go over anyway. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in on this and the input. I do disagree with whomever wrote your review. There is no hard and fast rule for copyvio %'s, its just a tool. Using it as a tool, everything that is being noted as copyright is in quotations or the name of song titles, like you pointed out. So I am fine with it the way it is, and I encourage the article to not change to make the tool say what we want it to say. Thanks again for stopping by though! Kees08 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)